9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (12) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave the power to issue garnishee orders directing third parties to pay the amount on account of default, which necessitated the petitioner to file a writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondent from exercising the powers which are not granted to him under the statute. The petitioner states that he is an assessee on the file of the first respondent. On or about July 1, 1954, Cauvery Sugars and Chemicals Limited, leased out the lands to the petitioner. Later on, disputes arose between the petitioner and the first respondent. The petitioner filed a suit which was decreed, against which the first respondent filed an appeal which was also dismissed. The matter went up to the Supreme Court, and on November 19, 1986, there was a compromise an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 390 acres of lands are now under illegal occupation of trespassers. The first respondent had nearly collected a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 towards agricultural income tax and the collection was not given credit to. The petitioner also sent a legal notice dated August 1, 1988, to the first respondent directing him to give account for the amount collected. An order of attachment was passed by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer on September 1, 1990, showing the total amount of arrears as Rs. 8,46,902.05 for the assessment years 1979-80 to 1988-89. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of attachment is not supported by any provisions of law. He has also brought to the notice of this court, the provisions with regard to the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overnment advocate has produced the records to show that a letter has been addressed to the District Revenue Officer by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, on September 23, 1987, showing the list of cases for which certificate under section 41 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act was required by the District Revenue Officer, Tiruchirapalli. In this case it is not clear whether the District Revenue Officer had the delegation of powers of the Collector. In such a case it cannot be said that the District Revenue Officer is an appropriate authority to take action under section 41 of the Act. In view of the above provisions, as there is violation of section 41 of the Act, the impugned order is quashed. But, however, liberty is given to the respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
